Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins
posted at 6/15/2014 8:33 AM EDT
In response to Hanrahan1's comment:
With the promised tweaking the Bs have the coming season to prove themselves and win that cup. If they don't do that PC will blow things up.
To management and ownership...winning a Cup is merely a bonus. You can "not' build a team guaranteed to win it all. I chuckle at all this LA talk. Nobody had them on the radar halfway through the first round. Yes, they're a good team, but this year, they were incredibly lucky, just like all Cup winners are. 3 OT wins in a best of 7 final defies the law of averages, as does an 0-3 comeback, and a ton of game 7 wins. Despite this great strength everybody's all of a sudden screaming about...every team they played in the playoffs... gave them fits. The Rangers could have easily been in a dead heat with them at this point, and I'm not that overwhelmed by the Rangers. The Bruins weren't blown away by LA in the regular season either.
And Gaborik.....he's been thrown around like stale bread. Did he merely do what he usually does, which is light up once in a while, or supplant Crosby as the games premiere forward. Seems pretty clear to me...it's the first one.
Congrats to LA. The won. They earned it. Doesn't mean they're the new standard though...just means they won.
When looking at the whole picture, it's easy to see who the good teams are, and how one team walks away with the trophy. The grind of the regular season proves who the better teams are. Usually, the winner of any playoff series plays to...or above their statistics, and they have some luck.
What makes the Bruin post mortem so incredibly easy, is the fact they sucked in virtually every measurable category against Montreal. They played way below their average. Miles below. Their PP was bad. The PK was bad. Team defense was off. Goaltending was off. 5 on 5 scoring was off. All scoring was off. Their best players were average. A disciplined team played undisciplined. It goes on and on. These are measurable points of reference, not generic rhetoric. Certainly Montreal deserves some credit for that, but to assume they had the power to cripple so many Bruin strengths is absurd. It's very obvious the Bruins had a big part in doing themselves in.
That's part of sport. Slumps happen. The experts realize this. The novices assume players got old all of a sudden, or slow...or they forever lost their ability to play, which in turn should suggest they all get traded.
PC's main responsibility is to maximize profit for his employer. Without a strong team, that won't happen in Boston. He's got one now, and he knows he should have one for several more years if he doesn't get too half-cocked. He won't be blowing anything up, unless making the playoffs becomes an issue. With where the B's sit in the league hierarchy, change has a better chance of hurting, than helping.